Tulsa Law Review Volume 38 Issue 1 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: One Hundred Years Later Fall 2002 Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the Paradoxical State of American Indian Law Bryan H. Wildenthal Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bryan H. Wildenthal, Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflections on the arP adoxical State of American Indian Law, 38 Tulsa L. Rev. 113 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol38/iss1/22 This Native American Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wildenthal: Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflection FIGHTING THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY: TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY REFLECTIONS ON THE PARADOXICAL STATE OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAW@ Bryan H. Wildenthal* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. 1999: THREE CASES, THREE COURTS, THREE SOVEREIGNS ............. 113 II. THE LONE W OLF M ENTALITY .............................................................. 118 III. THE H UNTING OF LONE W OLF ............................................................. 123 IV. THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY RISES AGAIN: THE REHNOUIST ERA OF AMERICAN INDIAN LAW ........................... 124 V. 2001: Two CASES, ONE COURT, NO JUSTICE ...................................... 135 VI. WHERE Do WE GO FROM HERE? ........................ ........................... .. .. 144 I. 1999: THREE CASES, THREE COURTS, THREE SOVEREIGNS In 1999, as the turn of the twenty-first century loomed, I planned to write a reflective essay on the state of American Indian law, a field in which I have been privileged to teach (but mostly, learn) since 1996.' I thought I would use as my © 2002 Bryan H. Wildenthal. * Associate Professor of Law and Director, Center for Law and Social Justice, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, Cal. A.B., 1986, J.D., 1989, Stanford University. See <http://bryanbhw. home.netcom.com/bryan.html>. I can be reached by email at <[email protected]>. 1. Not because it necessarily should matter (though things like race, nationality, gender, and sexual orientation do still matter in our society), but because people are sometimes curious about such things, I would add that I am a non-Indian by any meaningful measure: a mishmash of German, English, Scottish, Irish, and Hungarian. Yet appropriately enough, as I taught my Indian law course for the third time in the spring of 2001, one of my aunts discovered in her genealogical researches that my maternal grandfather was one-sixteenth Cherokee, meaning that I and my genetic siblings have one- sixty-fourth Cherokee blood. Teaching and writing in this field as a non-Indian has both challenges and advantages, but I'll get into that in some other article. I'm also gay, which may be the last thing anyone reading this article cares about, but I mention it because part of my fascination with Indian law and cultures has to do with the far more subtle and accepting manner in which many such cultures have Published by TU Law Digital Commons, 2002 1 Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 38 [2002], Iss. 1, Art. 22 TULSA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38:113 take-off point three very intriguing decisions rendered that year by courts representing each of the three sovereign types of government in the United States: federal, tribal, and state.2 There seemed to be grounds for optimism for those (like me) who generally support American Indian sovereignty. The United States Supreme Court, on March 24, 1999, strikingly reaffirmed (albeit by the narrowest of margins) Indian treaty rights and the traditionally pro- Indian canons of treaty construction, in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians.3 The Navajo Nation Supreme Court, on May 11, 1999, handed down, in Means v. Chinle District Court,4 what is probably the most important and interesting tribal court opinion ever. And the California Supreme Court, on August 23, 1999, decided Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees InternationalUnion v. Davis,5 which by the law of unintended consequences may have given the biggest boost of the three to Indian sovereignty. It was a promising year for Indian nations in other ways, too. President Bill Clinton, on July. 7, 1999, visited the Pine Ridge Sioux Reservation in South Dakota to promote and discuss a housing and economic empowerment initiative with tribal leaders.6 He was the first United States President ever to visit Indian country on official government-to-government business. And he was the first president to set foot in Indian country for any purpose since Franklin D. Roosevelt.7 This culminated the friendliest presidential administration in United States history toward the sovereign rights of Indian nations. Clinton held a 1994 summit meeting at the White House for Indian leaders from across the country8 and issued several landmark orders promoting Indian rights.9 traditionally embraced diversity in gender and sexuality. See e.g. Walter L. Williams, The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture (Beacon Press 1986); Will Roscoe, The Zuni Man- Woman (U. N.M. Press 1991); Will Roscoe, Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America (St. Martin's Press 1998). 2. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in an address to the Ninth Indian Sovereignty Symposium, noted that "[tIoday, in the United States, we have three types of sovereign entities-the Federal government, the States, and the Indian tribes. Each of the three sovereigns has its own judicial system, and each plays an important role in the administration of justice in this country." Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor, Remarks, Lessons from the Third Sovereign: Indian Tribal Courts, 33 Tulsa L.J. 1, 1 (1997) (Indian Sovereignty Symposium, Tulsa, Okla., June 4,1996). 3. 526 U.S. 172 (1999). 4. 7 Navajo Rptr. 382 (Navajo 1999) (available at <http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/courtrules .html>). 5. 981 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1999). 6. Jackie Barone, President Clinton Illuminates the Need for Investment in Native American Communities, 24 Am. Ind. L. Rev. 503 (2000); Remarks by President Clinton to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation Community, July 7, 1999, 24 Am. Ind. L. Rev. 505 (2000) [hereinafter Remarks by President Clinton]. 7. See Barone, supra n. 6, at 503; Remarks by President Clinton, supra n. 6, at 506. 8. Ann Devroy & Tom Kenworthy, High Council with "First Americans"; More Than 300 Leaders of Indian Tribes Gather at White House, Washington Post Al (Apr. 30, 1994); PresidentClinton Meets with Native American Tribal Leaders, The White House South Lawn, Fed. News Serv. (Apr. 29, 1994); Remarks by President Clinton During Meeting With Native American Tribal Leaders, The White House South Lawn, Fed. News Serv. (Apr. 29, 1994). 9. See Memorandum, Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, 59 Fed. Reg. 22951 (Apr. 29, 1994); Exec. Or. 13007, 61 Fed. Reg. 26771 (May 24, 1996) (protecting Indian sacred sites); Exec. Or. 13084, 63 Fed. Reg. 27655 (May 14, 1998) (promoting consultation with Indian tribal governments); Documents of United States Indian Policy 343-47, 357-58, https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol38/iss1/22 2 Wildenthal: Fighting the Lone Wolf Mentality: Twenty-First Century Reflection 2002] FIGHTING THE LONE WOLF MENTALITY I will come back to the Mille Lacs and Means cases in Part IV of this article. They are an important part of the story of the continuing, malignant influence of what I would term the Lone Wolf mentality on today's United States Supreme Court led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist-although Mille Lacs and Means both stood in valiant opposition to that mentality. Since Davis is probably more obscure to most readers (even to many of my fellow Indian law specialists, at least those outside California), let me expound a bit here on why I think it is so interesting and important. 10 It is not that the theory or specific holding of Davis were anything to cheer about. The six-to-one majority found Proposition 5-by which California voters on November 3, 1998 endorsed expanded Indian gambling-invalid on rather technical grounds under the state constitution."1 But Justice Joyce L. Kennard's brilliant dissent12 was a joy to read and signaled a heartening new trend: state court judges who actually know and appreciate American Indian law. Furthermore, the people of California signed on enthusiastically to her dissent less than seven months later, nullifying Davis by state constitutional amendment, as if to say to their high court, "What part of our sixty-three to thirty-seven percent vote on Proposition 5 didn't you understand?" The new California-Tribal Gaming Compact approved by Proposition 1A on March 7, 200013-by a margin of sixty- five to thirty-five percent this time, thank you very much-was negotiated by the new, more Indian-friendly governor, Gray Davis, who swept into office along with Proposition 5 in 1998. Proposition 1A allows an even broader range of tribal 361-63 (Francis Paul Prucha ed., 3d ed., U. Neb. Press 2000). Some would argue that Clinton's policies were more symbolism than substance; for example, one of his first budget decisions was to slash funding for the Indian Health Service. See e.g. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Clinton's Address to Native Americans, Congressional Press Releases (Apr. 29, 1994). 10. By the way, I especially hope this article will have some interest and value to lawyers and academics not well-versed (if at all) in the peculiarities of Indian law. So I would ask my colleagues specializing in the field to forgive any rehashing of basic points that will be obvious to them.